The BBC's handling of the Huw Edwards case, involving his arrest for possession of 41 indecent images of children as young as seven, has put the media giant under intense scrutiny. Despite being aware of the allegations since May 2023, the BBC suspended Edwards only in July 2023 and allowed him to continue receiving his full salary until his resignation in April 2024, citing medical advice from his doctors.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy wants answers from BBC Director General Tim Davie and has arranged a meeting with him. The BBC revealed it knew about Edwards' arrest on suspicion of serious offences in November 2023 but continued to employ and pay him until April 2024. Following Edwards' guilty plea, the BBC claimed it would have dismissed him "immediately" if charges had been filed while he was still an employee. This raises critical questions about the BBC's decision to permit resignation instead of swiftly terminating employment.

While it is easy to assert that Edwards would have been dismissed, such a decision could be complex and potentially unfair. Employers often face difficulties in showing a reasonable belief in misconduct during criminal investigations, especially when the employer lacks access to evidence and the employee professes innocence. However, being charged can justify the decision to dismiss based on "some other substantial reason".

Given Edwards' high salary (£479,999 per annum), the risk associated with dismissal could have been mitigated by the statutory cap on compensatory awards, currently set at £115,115. On the other hand there's the reputational damage from not dismissing.

As Chief People Officers (CPOs) and Human Resources Directors (HRDs), we must carefully consider how to advise our organisations on whether to support resignations amidst serious allegations. Striking the right balance between protecting the organisation's interests and ensuring fair treatment of employees is crucial.

‍